Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Saint Aardvark writes "Canada's proposed online surveillance bill looked bad enough when it was introduced, but it gets worse: Section 34 allows access to any telco place or equipment, and to any information contained there — with no restrictions, no warrants, and no review. From the article: 'Note that such all-encompassing searches require no warrant, and don't even have to be in the context of a criminal investigation. Ostensibly, the purpose is to ensure that the ISP is complying with the requirements of the act — but nothing in the section restricts the inspector to examining or seizing only information bearing upon that issue. It's still "any" information whatsoever.'"

Section 34 was introduced merely as negotiation fodder. It will be thrown out so that opponents will be more willing to accept the other terms of the bill, which are the ones actually desired.

Of course, over time this practice is repeated, and the net effect is the same. Frog in the kettle and all that. Eventually it gets too hot and people revolt and murder their leaders. But we probably have a while to go yet before that happens.

Section 34 was introduced merely as negotiation fodder. It will be thrown out so that opponents will be more willing to accept the other terms of the bill, which are the ones actually desired.

Don't get the reasoning on this. Most people seem to be up in arms over the exigent circumstances part. But we already have that on the books, covering entry to a home, phone taps, mail, fire arms, etc. There's rules governing it if you do it. Serious penalties if you fail to follow the rules including long jail times. There's a reason why there's an exigent circumstances clause, the FLQ. [wikipedia.org] Canada has a pretty good, long history of home-grown terrorists who like doing nasty shit to pretty much anyone t

SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith, under the guise of protecting childred from online pornographers, has proposed a new bill [businessinsider.com] that requires every Internet Service Provider to spy on every customer, logging every thing that they do online and keeping records for an entire year. Just in case. So... yeah. It's getting pretty bad.

And of course these records would be discoverable by his Big Media sponsors.

SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith, under the guise of protecting childred from online pornographers, has proposed a new bill that requires every Internet Service Provider to spy on every customer, logging every thing that they do online and keeping records for an entire year. Just in case. So... yeah. It's getting pretty bad.

And of course these records would be discoverable by his Big Media sponsors."

Freedom can only be taken away from you if you allow it. In fact you can take freedom _back_ if you so choose. The question is, do you care about your freedom enough to actually bring about some change, or are you so consigned to failure and apathetic that you're just not going to bother and let things go even further down the toilet?

Always keep this in mind, because it's what every dictator, faux-democracy elected official and Gestapo wannabe wants you to forget -- there are a hell of a lot more of you tha

No, that's not how it works. Push too far, expect the unreasonable, and even regular people will stand up and die for what they believe. They owe it to their children, or grandchildren. Besides, killing tyrants can be fun (or at least profitable).

"'Should'a taken the money, Toombs."

Or: "Do you know what your sin is Mal?""I'm a fan of all several, but right now, I'm going to go with wrath. I'm going to show you a world without sin."

No, that's not how it works. Push too far, expect the unreasonable, and even regular people will stand up and die for what they believe.

No, most of them will simply change their beliefs, and think you are foolish or evil for not changing yours to be in line with those in authority. And when you die, they'll cluck their tongues at your foolishness. That's the future: as Orwell said, a boot stomping on a human face, forever.

If you hate the laws you can leave the country. But when all countries have implemented the same shitty laws, there's nowhere to turn to.
Same as trying to boycott a company by shopping elsewhere, only to find out both stores are owned by the same parent company. I thought about this years ago but figured it was me being cynical.. yet we seem to be on that very path.

As an American, I honestly thought we lost our title of "Land of the Free" to you. Now we are watching you turn down the same dark road we fell down. Hopefully your people have more balls than the majority of the American people so they actually fight for it since you at least have us as an example to point to where that road leads.

If not, I guess the next Civil War just might end up turning into something beyond just civil. I honestly foresee an American civil war within my lifetime with how things are going. If our neighbors to the north are going the same route we do, they might actually use that opportunity to take back theirs as well if they fall like we have.

My reasoning is that the majority of the population doesn't understand/care/know about stuff like this. Just because WE ( 10% perhaps ) do, that isn't enough to do anything about it other than wave our flag as our rights and freedoms get flushed down the drain.

By the time the general pubic get to the point of wanting to take action, it will be too late.

I suspect it's really because the majority of the public are well fed and sheltered. Sure they're being milked financially by the corporate elite, but the situation isn't quite bad enough to provoke actual violence yet.
Maybe if people are going hungry they'll start shooting.
I wonder if there are parallels with the revolutions of 1848 here?

10% is enough to get things started, though. The American revolution was fought with fewer than 30% supporters at its peak, and most really didn't care.

Which suggests that the real number is far, far less than 10%. Indeed, when you talk to people about, say, the freedom-of-travel impediments (of, say, TSA et al), most will actually get upset that you're upset about it.

Prediction of USA future: In ten years the USA will be bankrupt (can't pay bills), massive riots and such. The army (mostly recruited from the poor) will side with the poor and you'll have a the army overthrow the gov. Based on how that works in the third world, you'll have a succession of army dictators with the occasional short lived "elected" president. I can't see the fine details, but I'm pretty sure the 1% will be getting lined up against the wall.

If you look at numbers released for the US Government in 2006-2007 that is not the case. Recruits from the poorest quintile of neighborhoods make up less than 11% while those in the richest make up over 25%.
So don't sweat the fine details.

You want your freedoms? You can pay for them in the sweat of your brow or the passion in your heart or the cash in your pocket like your ancestors did or you can settle for what you've got.

Now, I'm not saying this in a 'USA love it leave it' sense - Some countries are more ripe for the fostering of democratic progress than others - but moving to a place and looking to live off the benefits of its preÃstablished press and lifestyle freedoms is closin

Good point. I hope that the NDP will be raising that question in the House of Commons this week.

On the CBC, I sometimes wonder if they are a little hesitant to go after the Conservatives too much for fear of appearing partisan in the eyes of the government. I can remember the supporters' shouts of "Shut down the CBC!" during the election when CBC reporters asked Harper tough questions. My guess is that the CBC knows it is treading a thin line under the current government.

You have to understand that to the PCs, every bad thing was the Liberals' fault. I know it's been ten years since they were in power, but everything bad in the country was because of the Liberal Party.

There are no more Progressive Conservatives, of course. I actually could have voted for them against the Liberals. But the PCs sold their souls for short-sighted political gain and got assimilated by the Reform/Canadian Alliance party. Otherwise I agree with your post.

Where previous governments were able to pass laws and do stuff with actual consequences, the current government and their supporters at least has some justification for claiming "we're cleaning up the mess" even if I don't agree with what they

It's the same here in the UK with the BBC. The BBC has taken quite some hits this last few years in terms of reduced funding and artificial limitations placed on it's ability to compete.

The reason is that the Tories want the favour of Murdoch and Sky, who were all set to take 100% of Sky over until the phone hacking scandal upended the deal. By weakening the BBC, strengthening Sky, and strengthening Murdoch's grasp of Sky they were trying to ensure that TV became their own personal propaganda channel.

It will be the media lobbies, they have been trying to chip away at Canadian law for years. They are making the same attempts at other countries and of course in the US. I am sure they own the Conservatives in the same way they seem to own or influence a lot of other governments.This bill should be retitled "The Eliminate All Electronic Privacy Act" to reflect its real purpose.

The warrant system works pretty well. It is not perfect but it was never meant to be. There are abuses and innocent people get affected but the justice system was designed like this. Only the naive think you can have a legal system that can at least be somewhat effective without ever inconveniencing anyone. You might get your entire house torn up because of a wrongly issued warrant and that bloody sucks and compensation may be way to low but it is the price for the legal system we got. Better hope that like most, you never notice how it is to be subject of a police investigation.

BUT why chance this? The warrant system WORKS. It is effective enough and has proven checks and balances. The only reason to change this is if you want to chance the way the legal system works. Now there are two reasons to do it. To make it better or to make it worse. Somehow I can't see how removing warrants and oversight and review from searches is going to make the legal system any better. More effective?

The legal system works because most of us have no real reason not to make it work. In holland a recent news story was that of a man in a car trying to abuct several kids and succeeding with one. The police investigate and during their investigation they encountered two men, one who refused to let the police into his house (had a hennep farm inside) and one who refused to show ID... this wasted police time if nothing else. Cops had to check out why these two men were refusing to cooperate rather then simply going on to the next house/person to search for the abductor.

It is safe to assume to police didn't just question these two men. The rest of the people investigated were innocent and had nothing to fear from the law, so could be easily eliminated.

If anything can be searched any time by anyone, encryption will become the norm, so even if the police get a warrant, they can't eliminate the innocent in a search and will have to spend a lot more time investigating. Make everyone a criminal and finding the serious criminal will become a lot harder.

I am not a privacy nutter, I think that the justice system having special powers is the correct way to go about them, but there must be check and balances and the process open to outside review to make sure abuses do not happen. This is not new, this is the current situation. I am VERY suspicious of anyone who claims this has to change. Extra ordinary powers require extra ordinary reasons. So far I have not heard any.

If you deconstruct this whole thing, both in US and Canada and all over the world in fact, it comes down to one thing. There are people our there that just can't stand the fact that they don't know what your doing behind closed doors. That the don't know who your screwing or in what position for that matter. That they don't know who your talking to and why. That they don't know your personal secrets. They can't stand this. They automatically think that the desire for privacy = criminal. I mean you must be a criminal if you send private love letters to your girlfriend. Thees people will stop at nothing and use any excuse to rid personal privacy. They use lame excuses like "Think of the children" and the like. And the internet makes their head spin - millions of people are using it - and we need to know why what for and what their doing.

The article is about a government that is any thing but liberal. Probably closest to tea party as anything. They are cutting taxes but are still increasing spending. They pissed away the government surplus by cutting taxes and increasing spending and are increasing government size in the negative areas. Crime is at a 50 year low so they're building prisons like crazy, passing new laws to make previous legal things illegal and totally want to stop dissent no matter how much it costs.

As a Canadian who's a swing voter I think not only should such an absurd bill be killed but the sanity of whichever MP backs it seriously put into question. Any MP that backs such totalitarian surveillance bill is no longer qualified to hold office and should automatically have their re-election campaign targeted.

Harper is not right wing. Harper is a technocrat. Technocrats need to control information. This would be the ultimate control. Harper doesn't care about reading Joe Nobody's email. A good example of what this bill would be used for would be to find who leaked the information about the Minister who's career just ended.

Where Joe Nobody will get nailed is that their communications will be run through filters and false positives will be generated. Then when you do things like board airplanes or cross borders you will be interrogated about the sales chearleading you did when you said to your team, "Go knock'em dead. Totally destroy them. Our product will be like a bomb stuck up their asses." Poof you find your computer's seized, your accounts frozen, and any attempts to clarify and correct meeting a wall of "national security".

Can you imagine what would have happened though before the G20 in Toronto. I suspect an email with "The police suck" might have gotten you arrested.

So Joe and Jane Public will have to begin doing what the crooks are already doing - encrypting their stuff. Which threatens Google's "everything should be a web app" and "store your documents, etc. on our servers" and Facebooks "stay in touch with everyone and we can keep in touch with everything you do and who you do it with and sell it to advertisers".

That won't happen, because of the Canadian Constitution guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of association, and because, unlike the US, the Canadian courts have a tendency to thumb their noses at bad laws, such as minimum sentencing requirements, that violate the Constitution.

This will probably end up downmoded amongst the fearmongering, but this "analysis" is based on a gross misreading. Surveillance under section 34 can't be used for legalized spying because:

1. Section 34 doesn't authorize it. It authorizes the use of those inspection powers only to check for ISP conformance with the rest of the act, and2. C-30 amends, but does not derogate the Criminal Code, and section 34 powers aren't given an exemption to Section 184 of the Criminal Code. An inspector operating under section 34 is not considered to be authorized to intercept telecommunications for the purposes of 184. Doing so would be a criminal offence.

Rule of thumb: If you read anything online about Canadian law, it's probably wrong.

Take a look at the astounding usefulness of social media over the past year in assisting overthrowing governments. Plain and simple: knowledge has always been the enemy of the ruling class, and an unregulated and uncontrolled internet that focuses on decentralized dissemination of knowledge is their chief threat. Do you think the Western powers are going to just roll over after such a powerful demonstration of what the internet can do? Fortunately, they have cannon fodder like Wikileaks and extremist web

Double standard? That's one of the dumbest things I've heard here (and that's saying something). Obviously there are many conflicting opinions here, some believe the former statement and some the latter. That's not double standard. Also,/. is an aggregate news site with many different article and comment posters; there's such a diverse group that there isn't a whole lot of consensus to be expected.

I bloody swear, there are as many blokes complaining about whatever groupthink [x] is going on as the actua

Stop making this about you. What about less technically inclide people? And how do you know you are not using Google? Google knows you home SSID, and correlates it to your iPhone's MAC address. And unless you use pretty agressive blockers they have a pretty good list of all websites yhou have visited, even if you never visit youtube/gmail/google.com

There's nothing preventing the Google AND the goverment from fucking you over, except the fact that you have never done anything important ever.

There are laws that are supposed to stop Google from invading our (Canadians) privacy. While there are also laws to stop the government from invading our privacy, it is very easy to change them by passing a new Online Surveillance Bill. We also have way fewer checks and balances then the USA, basically the government is a dictatorship for up to 5 years when the ruling party has the majority of parliamentary seats.

Take a good look at what the majority operating system in use in desktop computers is. It ain't OSX, not by a longshot. Unless your computer has that lil Apple logo on it, or you decided to penguinise, it's running some version of Windows. All non-Apple computers ship with it preloaded. How is this not a monopoly? And don't give me the 'Apple Exists!' excuse, Apple is still interested in total vertical control of their product as to not 'dilute the Apple brand', which is why they freak out over the 'Ha

Google can be completely avoided easily...Apple can also be completely avoided easily...MS you have to go out of your way to avoid, and even then you will encounter files in proprietary formats and other nasties forcing you back towards ms.

A corporation has to ask you for your data, and you can say no -- at which point the corporation is SOL, regardless of your perceived goodness or badness of that corporate use. In addition, the corporation has at least some stake in your continued good will, and so they are likely to give you something back in return if in fact you choose to opt in. But if what they do makes people opt out... without customers, the corporation will cease to exist.

A government can -- and in the case of the US government, already will, the Canadians are well behind us -- take your data. Once it has it, it can, and will, jail you, take your life, and so on. They don't have to give you anything back, and typically, they won't. They have no significant investment in your good will. You can bitch all you want, but you can't opt out and they won't stop existing because they're annoying some of the citizens. Nor is there any hope of them annoying enough of the citizens for such a thing to happen.

You're been taught that corporations that do not know right from wrong are bad, thoughtless entities, and they certainly are, but they are nothing compared to a government that does not know right from wrong.

Also, in the final analysis, it is the government that enables or prevents any particular corporate behavior. If you get control of the government (good luck, too late in the USA.. but Canada... perhaps not) then you get control of the corporations.

Corporations don't care about your goodwill, they don't run for re-election. If something they do is unpopular they will create a new company to do that like RIAA is a branch of the recording industry companies. Once a corporation takes something from you (privacy) they can sell it or use it to harm you and there's nothing you can do to stop them. Politicians only keep their jobs if we let them. If government takes something from you (privacy) you can (collectively) take it back. Americans have a huge blind spot about corporations, they think they are more trustworthy than government when in reality it's the other way round.

If by "we", you mean a few hundred people who donate 80%+ of the politician's budgets, then I agree with you. Running for election has gotten way, way too expensive (it was never cheap, but costs apparently are rising exponentially). As I understand it, currently about 96% of the politicians who had more money than their opponent win the election.
A number of things that have very broad support of population majority on both Republican and Democrat side clearly have no chance of passing. How's _that_ for democracy?

If your electorate can't be bothered to skim everyone's Wikipedia pages before voting, then your democracy is a lost cause. Too much money being spent on elections is a red herring; it shouldn't matter if the voters care about being informed.

Although I don't subscribe to the ideology, if any lesson should be taken away from the Tea Party movement in the US, it's that the people here still have the ability to control government through fair, democratic elections. The problem is complacency, not the system as a whole. The citizenry has more power than it believes, it just doesnt bother to come together to force change often enough.

Google etc I can stop using any time without much effort, at that I've already got extensions installed to stop much of their data gathering.The Canadian government or as they like to now call themselves, Harper's Government, with a majority, has up to 5 years in which they have a dictatorship. They have way more power then the American government has. They can even invoke the not withstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and take away most basic civil rights.The Supreme court rules against this invasion of privacy, well they can override (for 5 years) our right not to be unreasonably searched, which our Supreme Court has interpreted as a Right to Privacy.They're also appointing new Supreme Court Justices who are more friendly to their right wing views.

Ahh, but you are forgetting one thing. The people in Canada have one power the US doesn't have, they have the power to vote governments out (ie decimate the party). See Campbell/Mulroney or the recent Liberal defeat.Yes they may jave 5 years to wreck the country, but at least you know you can get rid of them. In the US, with all the gerrymandering there are so many safe seats the equivalent could never happen.

In the US, with all the gerrymandering there are so many safe seats the equivalent could never happen.

That's certainly what they're trying to do here in Wisconsin.

The newest district maps the Republican-controlled legislature designed are completely one-sided, which in itself is nothing new, but with all the recalls and shit going on, they're now trying to figure out ways to force the recalls to happen in the newly created districts. Never mind the fact that the districts do not legally go into effect until November 2012 by the bill they themselves ratified; now that they stand to actually lose control of

America is the product of decades of brainwashing and a shitty education system. Corporations at the start of them were never intended to develop like this. They were initially kept in check, but time has proven that our system fails to protect itself from monetary corruption, and money has corrupted our hold on corporations. It's all went bad.

Our population is very brainwashed and ignorant, dangerously so. I have come to understand why people hate us. We by our ignorance, and lack of participation, let very evil people screw with the world. As long as we have our cheeseburger and get to look at Facebook, we don't care.

What we should be doing is blatantly obvious, but frankly I'm afraid to say it, lest I end up in Gitmo.

It'll never happen. The gov't got a good slap in the face on this one. Even the current house investigation into who posted the Vikileaks30 account is coming under fire as an example of what the government would do. They can't win on this, and they know it.

This story isn't going away - it was on the national news again tonight... Vic Toews is now the laughingstock of the country. He's admitted he didn't even know what was in the bill he sponsored.

I haven't heard anything about the omnibus crime bill not going through which is more what I was talking about. Unluckily this is taking attention from the other horrible laws that are on the table. The crime laws and the copyright laws for example.

It can also mean that we still have some archaic laws on the books that people rarely, or never reevaluate. Shit, the sodomy laws were only repealed in Georgia a few years ago. Until then, people were getting 10 year sentences for admitting that they had oral sex.

For that matter, the laws surrounding driving privileges and insurance are ludicrous. 2 people that I know have both been arrested for driving on a suspended license only because they changed insurance companies and the insurance companies failed t

It's a police state. We aren't free, we are surfs sucking the dicks of our corporate masters.

Crimes? If we had our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS which have been fucked out of us, we wouldn't have hardly any crime? Why? Because when idiots come robbing or murdering, or car jacking, we shoot them dead. Bullets are cheaper than prisons.

Drugs? This one is quite the scam. They don't give two fucks about you and your health. This is the perfect vehicle for crushing civil rights and creating a police state. They create the

And once the government slaps a felony conviction on you, you play no further part in its re-election.

The Fine Article is about Canada, where it's unconstitutional to prevent people convicted of a crime from voting.

In fact, only two adult Canadian citizens are not eligible to vote - the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer.

Actually I am an adult Canadian citizen I am not eligible to vote. I have lived outside of Canada for five consecutive years and therefore have had that right stripped away in accordance with Canadian electoral law.

Google could send you (or help others to do so) spam not so easy to ignore.

Government will find a joke you did, meant to be a joke, understood by all the involved parts of the conversation as joke, and still punish you [coupmedia.org] for that.

Now put that to really private conversations. Or any try to warn others about corruption/abuses/mass killings or whatever of people or companies somewhat related with your government. And that the one doing that with your private conversations could not be your government, but US one if you happen to be citizen of any other country.

The "This American Life" episode featuring comedian Joe Lipari linked in the article is well worth listening to. What happened was that he had a bad customer service experience at an Apple store, got home and was watching Fight Club, and made a joke on Facebook obviously derived from one of the most famous quotes in the movie. An

There's not much of a difference between a government and a corporation that has an effective monopoly. A (democratic) government that gets bad enough can be tossed out at the next election. It can take a whole generation, or more, to unseat a monopolistic grouping.

Companies don't care about your well-being. They just care about your money. Tobacco companies make money by killing people -- and they spent decades and millions of dollars on 'scientific' studies that questioned the conclusion of other sc

I've never smoked simply because I've chosen not to. I have however been subject to the laws my city, state, and federal government despite the fact that I disagree with a good number of those laws. Corporations easy to avoid, advertising or no.

It is hardly as simple as you're stating, but I won't cut you for that because walls of text are time-consuming and most people don't actually read them.

It is important to recognize that there is no distinction between corporations and the actions of the US Federal Government, most state governments, and even county/city governments in many cases. Corporations are, in nearly all cases, the beneficiary to US policy in one form or another -- one only needs to be paying attention to the motivations for bills,

But you don't have to use Google. Government has the power to aggregate *everything* - tax records, banking records, property records, health records, insurance records, travel records, along with whatever they can glean from Google. Living without Google is relatively easy. Try functioning in modern society without a bank account, paying taxes, or using health services.

I swear lobbyists put stuff like "section 34" in as a lighting rod for activists.

Later on they can drop this provision as a "compromise" to appease the opponents.

While we're arguing about this, they're passing the crime bill that even the right wing Texans told them is stupid. The new copyright bill, implementing ACTA and Sopa and who knows what else. Overwhelm us at the beginning of their mandate, make a small compromise, improve things slightly at the end of their mandate.